The Financial Stability Institute (FSI) of BIS published a paper that reviews institutional implementation of the principles set out in the FSB Key Attributes of Effective Resolution Regimes in 16 jurisdictions. The analysis concludes that conflicts of interest between the resolution and supervisory functions can arise irrespective of whether they are institutionally co-located or separate. A key factor in all types of arrangements is balancing operational independence for the resolution function with structures that allow it to benefit from synergies with the supervisory function.
The review shows the variation that exists in the institutional arrangements for bank resolution. While the adoption of the Key Attributes has given authorities an opportunity to review and possibly adjust their bank resolution arrangements, the principles-based nature of these standards regarding the resolution authority leaves scope for jurisdictions to integrate the resolution function within their existing institutional architecture. One of the principal considerations that emerged from discussions with authorities is how to achieve appropriate operational independence for the resolution function while enabling it to benefit from the synergies with the supervisory function. While the potential for conflicts of interest between supervision and resolution is widely recognized, there is a growing perception of the benefits of institutional arrangements that support close cooperation between the two functions. This negotiation between the two principles—operational independence and conflict management, on the one hand, and exploiting synergies on the other—is still ongoing in some authorities as new arrangements evolve and mature.
The review shows that conflicts of interest between resolution and supervisory functions could arise independently of the location of the resolution function. The co-location of the supervisory and resolution functions facilitates coordination and the resolution of conflicts through internal governance arrangements. To date, the bank resolution function in its current form is relatively new, and untested, in many jurisdictions. Therefore, effective practices in this area may still be a work in progress. Resolution authorities have not encountered significant obstacles in resolution planning and, where the arrangements were in place in earlier crises, in the conduct of bank resolution. Complex arrangements, such as hybrid models primarily resulting from historical experience, require greater coordination efforts. Resolution authorities also consider their staffing levels and legal protection as broadly adequate to exercise their functions, with the possibility of scaling-up resources in times of increased pressure.
Keywords: International, Banking, Resolution Planning, Resolution Framework, Key Attributes, Resolution Regime, Reporting, FSI, BIS
Previous ArticleEIOPA Launches Stress Test for Insurance Sector in EU
The three European Supervisory Authorities (ESAs) issued a letter to inform about delay in the Sustainable Finance Disclosure Regulation (SFDR) mandate, along with a Call for Evidence on greenwashing practices.
The International Sustainability Standards Board (ISSB) of the IFRS Foundations made several announcements at COP27 and with respect to its work on the sustainability standards.
The International Organization for Securities Commissions (IOSCO), at COP27, outlined the regulatory priorities for sustainability disclosures, mitigation of greenwashing, and promotion of integrity in carbon markets.
The European Banking Authority (EBA) issued a statement in the context of COP27, clarified the operationalization of intermediate EU parent undertakings (IPUs) of third-country groups
The Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions (OSFI) published an annual report on its activities, a report on forward-looking work.
The Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (APRA) finalized amendments to the capital framework, announced a review of the prudential framework for groups.
The Bank for International Settlements (BIS) Innovation Hubs and several central banks are working together on various central bank digital currency (CBDC) pilots.
The European Central Bank (ECB) published the results of its thematic review, which shows that banks are still far from adequately managing climate and environmental risks.
Among its recent publications, the European Banking Authority (EBA) published the final standards and guidelines on interest rate risk arising from non-trading book activities (IRRBB)
The European Commission (EC) recently adopted regulations with respect to the calculation of own funds requirements for market risk, the prudential treatment of global systemically important institutions (G-SIIs)